Is There Proof That God Exists?

[protonman]

The honest ones will tell you, 'we just don't know.'

How do you know this is true?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

How do you know this is true?

I have a speaking acquaintance with about four physicists. When posed with the question, they readily admit that all is conjecture.

The following site will give you examples. Look down the middle list of 'present explanations' for matter and energy. See what they say for many at the bottom of each finding. UNKNOWN - UNEXPLAINED - NOT UNDERSTOOD


http://www.starlight-pub.com/UnitNatureofMatter/ExplanationsList.html

 

[protonman]

I have a speaking acquaintance with about four physicists. When posed with the question, they readily admit that all is conjecture.

How do you know the physicists exist?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

How do you know the physicists exist?

By my assuming they exist in this illusion we call reality...

But I also assume that you exist in cyberspace within a dimension of a void...

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

How do you know the physicists exist?

By my assuming they exist in this illusion we call reality...

So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.

 

[protonman]

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by protonman

So you know something exists because you assume it exists. ]

That is my assumption.

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

 

[protonman]

Are you finished?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Do you have any independent testimonials, corroboration, confirmation, attestation, authentication, demonstration, proof, substantiation, testimonials, testimony, validation or proof that you really exist and are not just an illusion in your own reality?

 

[protonman]

I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman
I'm asking the questions now.

Me: So you know something exists because you assume it exists.

You:That is my assumption.

Me: So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You need to answer this last question.

If I were certain and had proof of a Creator who made us to see a holographic universe that appears as reality, then I would be a god. And you have no proof that you exist so you might answer yourself.

And I am not G-D...

 

[protonman]

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

Answer: YES and NO

You make me CERTAIN OF SOMETHING. Evidence of your continued nonsense about which a signed 8X10 signed glossy would be proof of your existence.

 

[protonman]

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman
Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

Answer this question. It is either yes or no.

You:Answer: YES and NO

So why can't you be certain that God exists?

If I knew for certain that G-d existed then I would be god. He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.

 

[protonman]

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

 

[Netme]

Originally posted by netme
Of course it wouldnt... computers only do what they are programmed to do. A creator could have done the same with us. Although there may be a connection between the creator and his creation, the created does not automatically receive the ability to be aware of his creator. To be aware of something you must be able to know that it exists. We use awareness as a survival mechanism which gives us the ability to know our surroundings and adapt to them. But how can we be for certain that god uses awareness? We know nothing of gods existence or what surrounds him or even if our exitential rule of adaptation applies to him.

What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know! [/B]

?

 

[Rader]

evidence of design

Originally posted by Netme
What if you knew for certain that there was a Creator? A Creator that required you to choose a path of right and wrong and follow His commandments. What would you do if you knew for sure?

Obviously you would no longer have 'freewill' or a quest to struggle within yourself.

The answer is obvious about whether mankind was meant to know!

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

He keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.
How do you know?

I know because of the following two words.

IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY.

There is a 0 percent statistical probablity that this universe could have come about or be sustained from moment to moment because of the above two words.

If anyone thinks they can understand that if one of the smallest changes or alterations in the formation of all things was altered or was not present, this universe and your existence would collapse into another void.

But you in your own self endowed wisdom may think that if there was a Creator you would just become somewhat smaller than you think of yourself.

Irreducible complexity means that anyone with any insight into the nature of things understands that there has to be a Creator.

Proof you ask?

Quote

Monsieur ... I did not believe in God; his existence has been disproved by Science. But in the concentration camp, I learned to believe in a Creator.

ATTRIBUTION: Jean-Paul Sartre

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

Nothing can be for certain but...What if there was just evidence for design in the universe. This evidence could be seen as evidence of a Creator. Why would someone who had this evidence loose his "free will"? What is so obvious about it? Maybe its just a matter of opinion or point of view. There may be some who feel quite differently about this. Evidence of design in physics due to the Anthropic "Fine Tuning"

Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

 

[protonman]

I want to summarize your argument so far. First off, you said I could not be certain that boiling water existed. Then you claimed that you talked with physicsts and used their testimony to establish that they admit they don't know what atoms, etc. really are. Then you claimed that you coulde be certain of somethings. One of which is that God 'keeps a secret pretty well unless you open your eyes.' Then finally you said 'If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.'

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.
The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

How do you define what exits?

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho
Richard you pose an interesting question of why would a human loose his "free will" if he knew for certain of a Creator.

If you knew for certain that if you flew to another city today you would die in a terrible crash, would you take that plane ride? Could your own anthropic 'fine tunning' turn around the fact that you knew and yet took that plane ride?

The answer is obvious? If you knew for certain you would certainly not take that ride because of your "free will" choice to live or die.

Onycho this question in my humble opinion can only be answered on a individual basis. Would the evidence of anthropic "fine tuning" tell you something? If you understood it to mean hitting the lottery with the same number 50 times in a row. If you were aware to a very fullest extent of its probable meaning, you might ask yourself. Why am I privleged to know this. You might ask yourself, what responsibility would one have, for knowing this? Is there a reason why evidence for one is no evidence for another? It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by protonman

You summarize my responses to your simpleton question as separate, unrelated or irrelevant entities. My responses were just examples of the obvious while you seem to think that there must be a simple answer to the unknown.

My question to you is: as someone who thinks it is not possible to be certain boiling water exists how can physicists, God's keeping secrests and knowing you would die in a plane crash exist?

My response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

You implied my thinking was 'flat earth' thinking. This is strage comming from an over the hill Jew has-been who has some ridiculous theory of how the Torah relates to reality.

Name calling and hateful anti-Semitism are examples of your reality and personality. You rely on your own senses to tell you that hot water exists or that my religious beliefs are somehow invalid as apposed to your superior illusions.

The problem with your view is that you can not make a statement about anything because you can not be certain that anything exists. If you can not be certain then how can you be certain that you can't be certain. You view is too extreme and it all boils down to one point. YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY SOMETHING EXISTING! I thought someone who claimed to be so wise would know to first define their terminology. So I pose one question to you before I completely destroy your view.

I never said that I knew anything for certain. It was you who was so certain about boiling water being painful. You have no proof of existence other than your own inherent ability to know for certain that your own 'human senses' are valid.

How do you define what exits?

Definition: Existence is not a mystery unless you think it has a meaning.

Belief with evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Richard Radar

...It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.

 

[Rader]

dichotomy or not

Originally posted by onycho
Originally posted by Richard Rader

...It seems that the evidence is not what effects the "free will" but the awarenss of evidence.

Your statement is a dichotomy.

If you mean by that, my way of explaining it, yes it is.

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.


'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader [/B]

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here...

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by onycho

Originally posted by Rader

If 'free will' is aware of evidence then it follows that 'free will' becomes nullified as choice is no longer an option.

It is the I that is aware, of which the "free will is invoked and the choice occurs. Why would the awareness of evidence nullify a "free will choice? How can "free will" be blind choices? The I is aware. The I makes the choice. I is aware of oneself, and is different from another self. The I is aware of oneself and the evidence of an event. The "isness" of the I, which is the soul of the man, is aware of the evidence and makes his "free will choice".

How might we explain then, that some would take the airplane, with prior knowledge, to intentionally committ suicide. 7/11

But choice is clearly an option when taken in this suicidal instance. Some have chosen by their own 'free will' to commit suicide. Remember 'free will' is one's choice and not because of a lack of unawareness. Good point here...

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

There are other meanings of "free will" Another meaning is "free will" a choice, based on conscious awareness of the facts at hand. For two different reasons knowing or not knowing you can get two different outcomes, of get on the plane or not. This is one definition but it might not be the only.

The first part of your statement is correct but if you are unaware that you will die you have not have committed suicide. 'Free Will' has only one meaning, the choice to go along one of several paths without foreknowledge of any outcome.

'Free will' requires choices not awareness of perceived evidence or outcomes. [/B]

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

One definition of 'free will' is the ability of one to choose a course or path without evidence to know which is the right or wrong choice.

The other of "free will" is a choice, based on conscious awareness of the evidence at hand, to know the right or wrong choice.

Changing the parameters of knowing or not knowing change the outcome of the "free will choice" Only the I knows which is right or wrong.

 

[onycho]

Originally posted by Rader

'Free will' requires choices, yes that is true, that what makes it free, but awareness of the event, through the I, makes the outcome, for different reasons, to be totally different.

Radar we are getting way off course here until we set a few definitions that put us both on the same plate.

Definition: 'free-will' -- Ascribing some autonomy to an agent such that the agent's actions can be described as self-generated or caused rather than determined externally or by preknowledge of an event.

free will theism -- Generally, the view within theology affirms that agents created are endowed with the ability and inclination to make choices, commitments, decisions, etc. without being bound to do so by a Creator. Specifically, the view within the general view that a Creator grants such freedom and consequently He can only know what is present or past, but not what is conditionally in the future.

I think we both are being misled by the use of the term "knowledge," as people believed that all that is requisite for their knowledge is requisite also for the knowledge of a Creator, The truth is "that the fact that a Creator knows things while they are in a state of possibility— when their existence belongs to the future—does not change the nature of 'possible' in any way; that nature remains unchanged; and the knowledge of the realization of one of several possibilities does not yet affect that realization". As to the question of divine providence, I do not even attempt to bring it into harmony with the principle of free-will.

If we had the knowledge of deterministic outcomes of our actions (you call the I) then any choices made by our 'free-will' choices would be based on that knowledge and ultimate outcome.

Ergo, foreknowledge precludes the 'I' free-will choices that makes us as individuals responsible for those actions.

Therefore, if you had knowledge that you were doing something or making correct choices but your free-will choice ignored the outcome, you would not therefore be responsible for your actions during your short time span on this earth.

 

[protonman]

Let me refresh your memory.

Me:So you can be certain of something although you have no evidence for it?

You:Answer: YES and NO

So you say that you can be certain of something here.

Laster you say...

YouMy response of how I or you can be certain of our repose here is in a question to you. How can anyone know for certain that you or anything really exists except by your own perspective as the center of the universe? Or that you live in your reality of human senses? No proof exists.

So up top you say that something can be known for certain and then later you say that nothing can be known for certain.

Based on what you have posted it has become clear to me that you really don't know what you are talking about. Check for yourself. Your posts are continuously contradicting yourself in your postings. Read mine there are none.

BTW, I had a hunch what your view was all along but now I understand it. You are making the classic mistake that anyone who accepts the idea of a creater would. Unfortunately for you I am not going to give it up right away.

 

[onycho]

Your opinions are much like yourself. A total contradiction and in fact you have no idea of what you are talking about.

My time is way to valuable. No further responses will be forthcoming.